Věra Jourová,Member of the Commission.– Madam President, honourable Members, this Commission – as President Juncker committed to this House – has made democratic change and transparency one of its ten political priorities. Our decisions affect millions of European citizens and therefore must be taken as democratically and transparently as possibly. The Commission already applies high transparency standards, but we are always open to examining our tools and practices and to adapting them further where necessary and appropriate.

The Commission welcomes that the resolution calls for Members of the Parliament and the Council to follow the Commission’s practice regarding the publication of information on meetings held by top political leaders and decision makers. At the Commission, information on more than 10 000 such meetings has been published. This transparency standard should become part of the culture of all EU institutions, as far as bilateral encounters with lobbyists, elected politicians and top decision—makers are concerned. The Commission also welcomes Parliament’s clear support for our intention to present a proposal for an inter—institutional agreement on a mandatory transparency register covering the three main institutions. To this effect, the Commission launched a public consultation on 1 March 2016, with a view to submitting a proposal in the second half of this year.

The Commission is convinced that across the three EU institutions involved in law—making, the same standards of transparency should be applied. The Commission also strongly welcomes the new inter-institutional agreement on better law—making. In that agreement, the Commission together with the other two institutions committed itself to further improving transparency in legislative procedures, and to setting up practical arrangements for cooperation in future international negotiations. Similarly, the creation of a joint the register of delegated acts by the end of 2017 will further increase the transparency of acts impacting on citizens and businesses.

The Commission calls on the co—legislators to adopt its proposals on access to documents aimed at extending the right of access to documents to all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. The Commission has consistently supported, and will continue supporting, the co-legislators in finding common ground on the two pending proposals updating and upgrading Regulation 1049/2001. As regards the proactive publication of documents, I would like to recall that the Commission has established a solid practice of document registration and publication in its document register. It actively supports the pilot project introduced by Parliament, which is aimed at providing easier access to a wide range of unclassified documents held by EU institutions. The overall success of the project depends on building consistency between the institutions’ document management systems, including the need to avoid duplication of existing tools.

The Commission also makes constant efforts to comply with its publication requirements as defined in the sectorial legal bases. We take the view that the current rules and practices strike the right balance between transparency and the protection of personal data. As regards the suggestion to establish the post of Transparency Commissioner, I can assure you that First Vice—President Timmermans, who regrets he is unable to be here in person, is the Commissioner who ensures compliance and improves administrative practices in the field of access to documents. I can also confirm that transparency is seen as an issue off paramount importance by the Commission as a whole.

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, on behalf of the PPE Group.– Madam President, public access to documents is essential to enhance people’s trust in our work and to bridge the gap between citizens and the EU institutions. At a time where populists claim that Eurocrats decide from Brussels over people’s lives, undermining the legitimacy of the EU, the EPP’s message is very clear: we have nothing to hide.

We are committed to transparency, openness and accountability. We should open the doors of the European institutions to show that decisions are taken democratically. The European Parliament is at the forefront, but more needs to be done, especially in the Council. I call on the Presidency to relaunch the negotiations on the regulation on public access to documents.

Citizens have the right to know what their representatives do on their behalf and how EU funds are spent in a fast, simple and user-friendly way. For instance, a common search and access point between the three institutions, like we have with the Your Europe portal, could make it easier for the public to find information. The people of Europe should be able to be involved in, participate in and influence EU decisions. This does not mean direct democracy. In Europe, we live in representative democracies and, of course, openness goes with responsibility. Public access is not about Wikileaks and it is not about whistle—blowers. Privacy has to be respected, while ensuring transparency.

And yes, Laura, the trilogues and international agreements must be more transparent, but we need to ensure a climate of mutual trust and the space to think. This is necessary to achieve results in negotiations. Personally, I committed to be open about my work. Reconnecting with people and gaining their trust in Europe is more important than ever, as we are confronted with common challenges that require a common European response.

Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group.– Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a job well done. I was her predecessor and I recognise much of the work we did two years ago.

A lot has been said about trust. The trust of citizens is at an all—time low and we need to get it back. At the same time, in this debate I often get the feeling that we do not trust the citizens because we are afraid to show the work that we are actually doing. I notice that, despite all the nice words, in all three institutions there is still not a culture of openness and transparency. There is a culture of secrecy and trying to disclose as little as possible. I know what I am talking about because I have carried out so many procedures trying to get access to documents and this even brought me to the Luxembourg Court twice. We should also realise that transparency is the rule. It is not a fancy liberal choice, but it is the law and we seem to forget that. Sometimes we say that we do not need to disclose this or that because we do not like it, it is awkward or we want space to think, but transparency is a legal obligation. If we do not want transparency, secrecy has to be justified specifically.

I refer to the resolution that we adopted two years ago that I had the honour of drafting. I note that the follow up to that resolution has been wafer thin. I am actually quite surprised to see that, when it comes to transparency in trialogues, we are actually taking a step back compared to the text that we adopted in 2014. So we were more inclined towards transparency in 2014 than we are in 2016 when the trust of citizens is so low.

Finally, I think there are three things that we should do which were in the previous resolution: appoint a transparency officer in all institutions, including in the Parliament, and the Presidency of this House has so far refused to do so; secondly draft an action plan; and, thirdly, we need rules for the classification of documents and a lighter procedure for challenging classification so that we do not need the Court.

Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFDD Group.– Thank you, Richard; always good to see you in the chair. The European Union talks a great deal about democracy and transparency, and so its dealings should be open to the scrutiny of the European citizens that it claims to represent.

One issue that concerns many people is TTIP – the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade treaty between the USA and the EU. TTIP is being negotiated in secret. MEPs have no say in those negotiations; we cannot influence their outcome. So far I have had over 20 000 e—mails from constituents concerned about TTIP, which will open up our public services and the National Health Service to US corporations. Of particular concern is the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that would allow private companies to sue governments in tribunals should those governments try to protect their national interests. Last week, President Obama came to London, where he threatened the British public against voting to leave the European Union in the referendum on 23 June. How low has Britain sunk when a foreign leader can come to threaten us in our own capital while our prime minister looks on approvingly? It makes one want to vomit. Obama said that we should vote not to leave the EU or there will be no trade deal with the USA anytime soon, and indeed that we would have to wait at the end of the queue. He overlooked the fact that the UK is a major trading partner of the USA and yet we have no trade deal. He overlooked the fact that the USA is one of the top ten trading partners with the EU, and yet it has no trade deal with the EU. When Britain leaves the EU, precisely nothing will change regarding our trading arrangements with the USA. Obama wants Britain to remain in the EU because he wants TTIP forced through on all of us. The British people should stop deluding themselves. We do not have a special relationship with the USA; we have a servile relationship. The American political establishment is not our friend; it only cares about big business and the interests of international finance. It is in the best interests of the British people to vote to leave the European Union on 23 June and to implement that decision as quickly as possible.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D).– Mr President, the process of European integration and institution-building has always been based on the ideals of participatory democracy and transparency – at least in principle. It is therefore most unbecoming for a number of EU institutions, including Parliament, that maximum public access for all unclassified documents, even nowadays, is not fully guaranteed.

In the light of this, I support the idea of incorporating the European Council, the European Central Bank, the Court of Justice, and all other EU bodies and agencies within the scope of the regulation being discussed. Transparency for documentation related to delegated texts and negotiations on international agreements is of particular importance.

The most basic reasoning for such change is quite simple. Those who, through their taxes, supply the bulk of the EU’s budget deserve to know what is actually happening behind the walls of each institution. Moreover, a higher level of transparency would directly and positively affect public interest in the Union itself.

Věra Jourová,Member of the Commission.– Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for all your comments and your support for transparency which we fully share. It is not by chance that our two institutions are organising a joint event on transparency on 2 May, which will contribute to the public consultation for setting the transparency register and reach out to interested parties in Brussels and beyond. As I explained, the revision of Regulation 1049/2001 is pending before the co-legislators and the Commission stands ready to help Council and Parliament find common ground. Irrespective of this process, the current handling of requests under this regulation is fully compatible with Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. At the same time, the Commission is bound to observe the case law of the EU courts with regard to documents relating to infringement investigations against Member States.

The Commission looks forward to working with the European Parliament, the Council, the Ombudsman, the European Data Protection Supervisor, civil society organisations and all concerned stakeholders on shaping the future transparency regime. The Commission considers that in the areas where the EU is responsible for administration, the latter is governed by an extensive framework of rules, principles and practices. In that spirit, the Commission remains to be convinced about the opportunity of specific legislation providing for a horizontal framework of an EU administrative law at this stage.

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing.– Access to documents is a necessity for transparency and democratic accountability. The recent rise of Euroscepticism means we need to strengthen our citizens’ trust in the European administration now more than ever. Furthermore, transparency acts as a deterrent to corruption and other questionable behaviour.

While the ‘revolving door’ remains a problem, only current members of the administration are within our remit. Yet it would still be a move forward if officials had to declare their meetings with people who now serve the private sector but remain in orbit around the institutions. An example of this would be Siim Kallas. Although, as a former Commissioner, Kallas has a duty to refrain from lobbying the Commission and/or its departments on behalf of Nortal, he has, in his position as Commissioner Dombrovskis’ special advisor, unfettered access to the Commission while being on the payroll of a software company on whose behalf he theoretically cannot lobby.

We need even tougher transparency rules to prevent this kind of behaviour, which clearly erodes public confidence and trust in the EU. It is regrettable that current transparency rules are not fully complied with and that the Commission is not making progress towards adopting an instrument which would allow for more transparency.